[N]ot a philosopher I'd really want to study{}. You might do better studying Descartes or Locke, or even Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, or Adam Smith. Carlyle was the Grandfather of fascism. A brilliant man... a Polymath... but like all Polymaths, he grossly overestimated the capacity of one man to rule. Democracy is actually far more stable than Monarchy. It produces the most amount of benefits for the most amount of people, for the longest amount of time.

I'd say it did begin with Modernism. That's for sure. Most of our philosophical traditions have been bad for going on 200 years now. That was a reaction to World War I and the French Revolution, they were both so bad, it spurred a counter movement, which to be frank... the Romantic School, the Enlightenment School, and Christ's Moral Clarity were already the counter for. We had it right for about 50 years, from 1950-2001. There was a budding romanticism, checked by realism. Which was really the culmination of the Enlightenment's and Christianity's values. Not Modernism's.

What you do have to understand about him, is he lived right through one of History's most tumultuous times. He saw the effects of the French Revolution--which was very ugly--and it wouldn't look good to him. But, we know the effects it would have were actually good.

Like all things, history goes in cycles. There's period where men are filled with sin, then they get frustrated because that sin causes them to suffer, and then they move to war. And Carlyle saw one of those bad times in history and romanticized the Peace England was feeling. As Dickens had a reason for saying, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." So do individual civilizations.

What's true, however, is Free Markets are better for people, that have restrictions for the public's [safety]. And so are Democracies better for people, because it puts more minds to the task of figuring a thing out, which 1000 lay people can outthink one 200IQ genius.

So, generally, the "Great Man Theory" is wrong. We see that happening in America right now, that hundreds of interests are at play, and the real movements are top to bottom and middle and all over. Tolstoy actually wrote about that. That kind of historical analysis is more valid, I'd think, than Carlyle's. It's just true, the individual in a collective has far more power than any one man can or ever will. And really, you're doing the right thing, by influencing people to see their own responsibility in the picture. Every one of us has a responsibility to cooperate and do what's good.

I know my essay is my weakest. But, I understand some things, so bear with me. I do good work with understanding how things work, but haven't quite nailed the personal essay. My Epistle, Personal Narrative, Maxim, Poetry and Fiction are strong, and so is my Midrash. But, I am a weak essayist. I suppose everyone has limitations, don't we?

I don't know if "Mental Age" is a right analogy. There's certain biological factors that make that impossible. For instance, when you turn 18 and a half your body gets fat and begins to be sexually viable. And at 16 your hormones allow you to experience true love. At 23 your conscience is fully developed, and you can take more accountability for yourself. At 30 you become capable of understanding a bit deeper, and grow more mature. 30 was an interesting age, as a light bulb just clicked. You can see it on my blog, before 30, I was kind of silly, but then at 30 it just matured me instantaneously. I was reading old blog posts and could see the shift. You become more aware of evil at 30, and lose a lot of your naivety. And you also become less prone to worrying about social mistakes. You become significantly more aware of the other at 30, and I don't think that can exist even in a child prodigy. That's just not a good way of putting it.

The things you can do better than AI, are Imagine, Witness and Reason. So, if you use those three skills, which an AI can't do and will never do, you'll write better than it.

Imagination is creating worlds, using structure, subtext, and using knowledge of philosophy and psychology and sociology and general knowledge, creating imagery, and being intentional with your metaphors.

Witness is what you feel, see, smell, taste, touch, perceive... draw everything you write from primary sources. Your fears, your failures, what you see around you, gather impressions.

Reason, is the ability to move from lower principles, to higher principles, without having to touch it. It's a form of division, where you arrive at the unknown through seeing the patterns converge.

I don't think it does, actually. Desire is actually very healthy, and can make you very happy, if focused on the right things. I think without desire, you lose your hope. And that's actually why depression coincides with hopelessness and a lack of desire or interest. That's generally why so many romances fail, is that one or the other partner's desire fails. When two people desire each other, it makes a heaven like bliss. That's why I reject Buddhism in a nutshell. Is that I think a large part of what's good, stems from our desire for the good and fulfillment of it.